Never before have so many "mother f-ers" been compacted in one brief phone conversation. And this video isn't even showing the entire conversation! Count the F-words and be AMAZED!
Scalia is a total joke. He was on C-Span the other day and talked about how the "living" constitution should die. Another words, the S. Court should decide matters on how the constitution was written. This fuck voted to appoint bush President twisting the 14th amendment till it didn't make sense anymore. The writers of the constitution would have never dreamed of commercial airplanes flying in to our buildings or tweeting!
Yes. You and the left wings of whom do not even take into consideration what has been decided by the people who ratified the constitution. I think as long as you change the meanings of the constitution as you please, there will always be meaningless ethical debate, because you made it that way. That's why your philosophy is not a solution. At least on the conservative level, you have an actual constructive and objective basis, not just relative modern morals.
I'm okey with torture if the person really deserves it! but what is going on in GITMO is a different story all together they torture everybody just to see if they know anything most of them innocent that is very very wrong
@jimmy2k4o It doesn't matter whether you're "okay with it." What we must follow is the LAW. We are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, it is illegal for us to torture ANYONE, pursuant to our engagement in armed conflict.
Correct interpretation, Justice Scalia. He, however, DOES NOT defend torture at all: he simply says it is not something under the Constitution's protection; not every law against bad things needs to be derived from the Constitution.
@kinpopdj I agree. One presumably can bring a civil rights or other tort claim against prison officials for torture. Calling torture cruel and unusual punishment creates a slippery slope where inamtes can claim any substandard condition is a constitutional violation, e.g. they don't like the prison food.
@edenstore People aren't limited to civil claims when they've been battered by the police. CRIMINAL charges can be brought against police officers who torture detainees.
Also, even if the rest of your statement were true (the slippery slope effect), what would that matter? This whole discussion is a search for the INTENT of the framers of the 8th amendment. That is all that matters here.
@MIvarsson99: I never said criminal charges could not be brought against torturers. I was just thinking of the most immediate remedies for the victim personally. And only a flaming liberal would see a "slippery slope" as not mattering. And why does one need to know the "original intent" to figure out that torture differs from punishment?
@edenstore I know you never ruled out criminal prosecution. I was simply attempting to educate you.
Anyway, I'm saying that a slippery slope should not matter when interpreting the 8th amendment.
This entire discussion is about interpreting the 8th amendment. All that matters is the framers' intent, when we are engaged in constitutional interpretation.
@kinpopdj How do you know that Justice Scalia doesn't defend torture? What has he done to prove this?
Every law issued by CONGRESS must be derived from the Constitution, because Congress can only pass laws pursuant to its constitutionally delineated powers. And lastly, it is fair and valid for someone to presume that the eigth amendment proscribes cruel and unusual punishment of ALL kinds, whether it is imposed by a judge sentencing a defendant or a police officer beating a detainee.
Law is about standards. To apply the protections of written concepts to reality requires several things: a clear and coherent definition of the concept, how and why it applies to a scenario, and most importantly, how does it conflict, if at all, with aforesaid concept.
Therefore, nit picking words is, by definition, what a lawyer does.
It's not evasion, but a perfectly sound legal question that goes back over a century. Remember to apply concepts, you first need to define them. There are several methods to do this- textual meaning, intent, precedent, etc. No federal court has ever considered torture as a means of intelligence gathering to "punishment". Sure you can posit its cruel, but that's not the legal issue at stake here.
Remember, judges are experts on law, not morality. They simply apply the law that the people have adopted; for them to dictate from the bench inherently implies that the SCOTUS can arbitrarily change the social contract. You want to expand the limitations of the 8th Amendment? Perfectly acceptable opinion to have; ergo, advocate it through the amendment process. Of course it's difficult, but if your opinion is morally valid, it will eventually be ratified.
Its amazing how many people on here misinterpret what he is saying. He is NOT saying torture is justified. He is NOT necessarily saying it is legal. He made a general point that not every bad thing in the world is banned by the Constitution, and then pointed out how the 8th Amendment (cruel and usual punishment) doesn't apply to torture. That does NOT mean that there aren't other possible sections that prohibit it. He didn't defend or justify torture at all.
don't question jalia on his knowledge of the constitution asses, obviously he'd own you in a debate, seeing as how you get the legal definitons mixed up
YOU GUYS ARE RETARDED. understand the legal definition of "punishment"
punishment is after being sentenced or convicted, that is a LEGAL DOCUMENT, not your own fucking interpretation, legal writing=you only get punished after a conviction-DUH
@Iobi123 If you really possessed the legal knowledge you pretend to , then you would know that these issues are not so black and white. Constitutional interpretation of terms such as "punishment" and "torture" are issues upon which even the most revered legal minds in the country disagree.
Reading your comment, it is clear to a certainty that you have never been to law school.
Torture is a double whammy: 1, you are forgetting innocent until proven guilty. 2, you are using cruel and unusual punishment to make someone do what you want them to do.
If you torture someone and they die or confess to a crime they didn't commit, then you've broken just about every law there is on Earth.
@Gratlaguy No one is doubting that you haven't broken a ton of laws. Scalia himself wouldn't doubt what you say. All he is saying is that it wouldn't violate the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel/unusual punishment. Punishment has a specific legal meaning. It isn't the same as saying "cruel and unusual treatment". The only point made is that 8th Amendment doesn't apply. Doesn't mean you can't make other arguments against torture, such as a due process argument
I'm beginning to dislike Scalia with every video I watch of him. Seriously. Every debate he enters, he just says "I think it's this way, and I'm done talking to you. I'm right."
I agree completely with all of OneVoiceMore's comments on this. Scalia, as usual, uses mental gymnastics to ignore both the words and the intent of the Constitution.
He actually states that he doesn't think that ANYONE has ever equated torture with punishment. Not even he believes that, yet he says it as if he does. One trait of a sociopath is someone who can tell a known lie as if they believe it is true.
99+% of children and 90+% of adults will tell you that torture is punishment. Just ask.
Punishment from the legal perspective happens upon conviction of the defendant. If torture happens after this point it is in violation of the eight amendment; however if it happens before it does not! Get your facts straight Scalia knows what he's talking about!
@olivemike81 no, he's simply distinguishing battery (police officer beating you) from punishment (sentencing; e.g. 10 years in prison, 30 days in the electric chair, etc.)
Scalia is such an arrogant, immoral asshole. That he was allowed to rise to the highest court in the land is a condemnation of America. As a military interrogator with 3 deployments and thirty years of service I resent conservatives who advocate torture knowing they will not have to carry it out. Asshole conservatives.
@gunzrkewl He's not though because torture is PUNISHMENT. By definition! You are punishing someone for not releasing information. If they release the information they would stop the punishment for not doing so. The founding fathers put in that provision because they did not want the state to have the power to make people fear the government by having the ability to torture for any reason. Torture is punishment even in and of itself. It's certainly not a reward.
@safewaysecurity Suffering in the legal defintion means and I quote " a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure" Thus torture is not punishment!
@gunzrkewl How stupid can you be?!?! You wrote: "Scalia is right. Even if what you said is true..."---that's the eqivalent of saying "Scalia is right even if he is wrong."
What you mean is that Scalia's view is the prevalent one held among article 3 court judges in America.
That does not make it "right" just because it is popular.
Punishing you for not giving the information... I am an originalist but torture is DEFINITELY unconstitutional. Hell even Scalia says the the bill of rights was designed to prevent the kind of things a tyrant would do. And torture is something they would do.
you're headed for a rough interview when Scalia gets animated with his hands ... that's when you can see his brain go into overdrive ... his intellect is amazing, not only here but in his opinions as well
Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution does not provide a hammer for every nail. That is what legislatures are for. If you disagree with torture, simply PASS A STATUTE against it.
Also, I'm not sure if any of you missed it, but Scalia actually said there were laws against torture. What he is arguing about is whether torture constitutes a punishment, which his stupidly says it isn't.
Keep in mind there's a huge difference in meaning between "conservative judge" and "conservative politician". Conservative judges tend to read laws as they appear on their face. Liberal judges find ways to read new meaning into them to fit the times. Both positions have their pros and cons.
Scalia says a fetus isn't entitled to the rights of a human being? The fascistic conservative idiots get mad at him. Scalia says you don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion? The liberal wackos get mad at him.
Supreme Court justices don't operate in the petty political sphere of Democracy Now and whoever the hell idiot woman was interviewing Justice Scalia. They operate legally. Not politically.
"Who's in favor of it? Nobody." Then why is it an issue? Why does it happen? Sadly, there are millions of people in the US who would defend or advocate the use of torture.
Aside from the clear Constitutional protection about the right to oppose self-incrimination, Scalia can say he's correct all day long, but you must be extremely obtuse to buy into it.
Being tortured in order to obtain self-incriminating evidence is unconstitutional, and arguments about whether torture is punishment are a bit of a smokescreen.
Arguing fine points of constitutional niceties while clearing discarding the clear sum total of constitutional protections is lawyer double-think.
How does the practice of "torture" not fall into the category of the clearly unconstitutional "cruel and/or unusual punishment"? Can somebody enlighten me lol?
@davethehostage Although I don't agree with torture, Scalia is right. Just because you torture someone it does not mean you are punishing them. But, because the use of torture in a coercive situation is not defined by the Constitution, ie. "cruel and unusual coercion," the Supreme Court cannot ban the use of such tactics, let alone define what 'torture' means. Hope this helps..
@davethehostage In legal terms, punishment implies a penalty inflicted for a crime after a system of due process finds a person guilty. Torture as a post-trial punishment would be cruel punishment. Torture before a trial with the purpose of obtaining information may be morally reprehensible, but is not by definition punishment. It is neither inflicted as part of a legal system nor for the purpose of punishment for a crime. None of that makes it right. It just isn't SCOTUS domain.
@FAHayek89 It depends on how whole-heartedly one accepts the strict limitation that 'punishment' is only post-trial. I think it's implicit in the Constitution that cruel behavior is undesirable. There seems to be some legal wand-waving to endorse pre-sentencing cruelty.
If these men had DUE PROCESS, this would be a moot point.
I guess I'm more of a top-down thinker, and I find your arguments, while 'legally' somewhat sound, to require mental and moral gymnastics on the clear intent of the Con.
@OneVoiceMore EXACTLY. This is just a bunch of extremist, conservative bluster.
Leslie Stahl makes a great point here. Even AFTER conviction, the law punishes the accused based solely on its BELIEF that he has committed a crime. That belief may have been substantiated by evidence, legal burdens of proof, etc. but it is still nothing more than a belief. So, why is that so different from when a law enforcement agent beats a man based on his BELIEF that the person has committed an offense??
@DojoNDude. I don't think this is an issue of semantics. The 8th amendment doesn't consider at all the scenario where torture may yield some sufficient benefit. The purpose of post-conviction sanctions are retribution, deterrence, etc. Torture in the modern political context alleges the purpose of information gathering. How is that a distinction of semantics?
Please, Justice Scalia, your job is to interpret what the framers intended, not to play semantic games. The punishment for a crime occurs after you have been tried and found guilty. At that point the State has the most license, yet still they are barred from the cruel and unusual. It is not a huge leap to assume that those not found guilty of a crime are extended the same protections. In fact, it is absurd to think otherwise.
Scaliia is obviously OTL on this. Any sensible person would realize that it does no good to bar cruel and unusual punishment if you allow unrestrained interrogation. The idea that people should be fearing the interrogation as opposed to the punishment for their crime is totally Alice-in-Wonderland. I can't believe the man's a Supreme Court Justice!?!
@DojoNDude - The job of a judge is to decide tough legal issues. I am sure if you were a judge you would do much better. Go pick up a Nolo book and you'll be ready to go.
Scalia simply uses the definition of the punishment and torture to make his point. Sorry, but as a judge, you have to start with the plain meaning of words for proper legal analysis
I know--fascists really don't care who get tortured especially if it is someone they have an irrational hate for.
By the way, wasn't it terrible how the Moslems attacked the USS Liberty in international waters in 1967 and almost caused a nuclear war in the Middle East? Oh, sorry, that was our gallant friend Israel.
What is your problem with Moslem fanatics as opposed to Jewish fanatics or Christian fanatics? The Jewish fanatics have a huge army, navy, air force and nuclear weapons--that is because the Jewish fanatics run the Israeli government. The so-called Christian fanatics controlled the government in US for eight years.
Everyone on the Supreme Court favors an ideology as well as a poisiton in constitutional theory(especially Scalia);justice Kennedy is usually the center-right swing vote.
If there is in fact a strong argument for torture not being in violation of the Constitution he certainly doesn't make it.Instead he makes self-refuting remarks on how torture is ill-defined,only to follow it up with a strict definition of torture as forensic science.lol
Scalia is an unabashed right-wing jurist & his voting record reveals it(which is only in part influenced by Originalism,which has always served as an intellectual bulwark for for the right.)He's an avowed federalist that ascribes to the notion that all civil rights issues,including abortion,are issues for state legislatures,& that the Constitution is essentially a conservative,theoretical document for debating ideas like 'torture' but not their ethics.
@thirdshift47 -Abortion (right to privacy) is not a right in the Consitution. It is supposed to be for each state to decide. You want to use the Supreme Court in a way that it was not intended, as a way around the democratic voting process. It should not be these 9 justices to circumvent this process every time you have a woild hair.
You've obviously never heard of the 4th Amendment.
Actually the abortion decision,written by Justice Harry Blackburn,was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Now there's certainly a valid debate to be had as to how the language of equal protection applies to reproductive rights(and Scalia seems to have made it his lifes work-lol) but what is not debatable is that states don't have the right to challenge what the Supreme Court has deemed a civil right.
Not so thirdinput. The Equal Protection (5th Am) applies to fundamental rights (right to marry, to procreate, to vote, to parent). These are rights deemed so fundamental they need not be expressly stated in the Constitution. The right to privacy, expressly stated under the 4th Am, is not a fundamental right and it is not for abortion. It has to do with unreasonable warrantless searches & seizures. The Roe decision is not based on law; it is a fiction that subverts State power thru the vote.
The point is the right to privacy is NOT a fundamental right. The EP clause is to protect fundamental rights. The 14th Am. is applicable to the state & the Federal Gov't via the 5th, through the doctrine of incorporation. That is what I was talking about. I bet you did not know that the 14th was not technically ratified properly because a couple of states renounced their vote because the southern states HAD to ratify as a condition to get back in the Union. Most decision by SCOTUS are 5-4
Secondly,by your definiton the freedom of speech,the right to protest your government,the right to a fair trial & the right to bear arms aren't 'fundamental rights' either,but issues for the states to decide on.
The Due Process clause of the 14th Amen., clearly states that 'all legal rights'(as defined in the Bill of Rights;not 'fundamental rights'--now you're adding your own language)of individual citizens are protected from the states.
The rights of individuals you mentioned ARE enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am talking about rights that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution but are fundamental to an individual's freedom. They include right to marry,procreate, parent and even vote. There is no fundamental right to privacy. The Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Gov't (Congress) when passed. Eventually, the Supreme Court extended them to the states via the doctrine of incorporation.
How in the hell can procreation be essential to an'individual's freedom' but the right to terminate a pregnancy not?
Second,Privacy,just as issues of procreation,marrige(including same sex)and any other basic right the heart can imagine can be extrapolated in the 9th Amendment.The point 'intended',as Thomas Jefferson(the father of unenumerated rights)stated--
"No society can make a perpetual Constituiton or even a perpetual law.The Earth belongs to the generation"
It is the RIGHT to procreate -meaning that the state can't tell u to have/not have children like China. That is an unenumerted fundamental right - it cannot be taken away by government action. Abortion has been made a fundamental right through fuzzy logic - the idea of a fundamental right to privacy. If that is so, & a woman has a right to her body,why isnt prostitution/bigamy fundamental rights too? The reason is that the Roe court went too far - just like the Commerce Clause. Judicial Activism
But the states,like Chinese state,shouldn't be restrained in their supremacy over a citizen's body?
It's not an issue of the logic behind abortion,no more than there being an issue behing the freedom to use irrational speech.It's about whether freedom from having one's body politicized & regulated,which I agree,includes drug consumption,prostitution,polygamy(for which there are no strong legal arguments against)can be extrapolated from the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.
I never said I am for an "unrestrained" state. These issues can be decided w/o using the Constitution. Abortion had been illegal for 200 yrs in Amercia & most other places for thousands of years. It is NOT a Constitutional issue but unrestrained judicial activism. IT is a state's rights issue. As such, the voters of each are supposed to decide whether or not they will allow it & to what extent. Regulating healthcare is fine but it is not for the Court to say it is a "right" for everyone.
@thirdinput- This is Civics101. Each state retains the police power - the power to regulate for the health, safety, welfare and morals of its citizenry. So whatever is not under Federal control, each state can pass its own laws. Every society yields this power - laws against inest, rape, bigamy, prostitution and YES abortion. These are not fundamental rights. So Nevada is free to permit prostitution. However, once the SCOTUS decide on an issue, it becomes law for the entire country, w/o any vote
Again,you've obviously never heard of the commerce clause(article 1,section 8--1st Amendment)which gives the federal gov't the right to regulate all interstate commerce,including the selling of insurance(and Declaration of Indepence 101 concludes that life,which to any idiot implies health,is a natural right,not to be denied by either federal or state governments.)
"Civics 101" simply says that according to the constitution the US states have the independence to regulate legal codes and pass legislation that in no way can deny rights of citizens.
Indeed,even prostitution will one day make its way to the Supreme Court & argued as a 9th Amendment right,but right now we're still too puritanical a society so it becomes an issue for state legislatures--like drug usage.
It is common knowledge that the Court has recently limited the broad expanse of that Commerce Clause (Thomas and Scalia) after a long history where the Court acquiesed to the power grab of the federal govt. I am surprised that you, a person who is against Bush and Cheney expanding power, would say this that the commerce clause should encompass just about every act of Congress.
1.)Ofcourse the 'Federalists' jurists on the court would vote to limit the commerce clause;that's an argument?lol
The point is that the commerce clause provides one of the fundamental powers of the gov't enumerated clearly in the Constitution;not whether or not I support it(you're on a roll with all of these assumptions.lol)
Indeed,i'm surprised AT YOU for confusing the Bush/Cheney rewriting of excutive power with those powers that are cleary provided in the 1st Amendment.
I'm talking about all the branches of FEDERAL gov't in a power grap against the States. My concern is that the democratic process is being subverted by those who look to the SCOTUS for a decision that can then be imposed throughout the nation. The commerce clause was originally meant to protect against states for taxing each other on the waterways, not to prohibit the sale of guns or something like that. The Court needs to return to the proper use of that power
Dude,the Federal government has failed miserably in regulating interstate commece,including Health Insurance,inspite of the fact that they have the tools in the commerce clause & the Sherman Antitrust laws.
But when the private sector writes the legislation what can you expect?
I also find it amusing that your so paranoid of an activist court & yet you site Thomas & Scalia's judicial activism against the Commerce Clause as worthy argument against it.
@thirdshift47 - It is not activism, but a correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Scalia makes the more compelling argument every time. He doesnt care about the result as muc as he care about the method of reaching the result. You rather have an unelected judge decide the law for you rather than the democratic process - electing officials that who represent us. I am not paranoid about an activist court. I am concerned about the way the court reaches its decisions.
And how exactly is an original meaning interpretation of the commerce clause 'a correct interpretation?'
Says whom?
Secondly,your major premise for a limited commerce clause directly controverts the Scalia decision that says states don't have the right to regulate noncommercial,medically prescribe marijuana(Gonzales v.Raich)
He chose to consult the Necessary & Proper Clause which expands the Feds rights.
I agree with you;Scalia only cares about results,not states.lol
If abortion is not Constitutional than how can it be a 10th Amendment issue?
It's blatantly self-refuting.
Even Scalia,an abashed right-wing jurist,has not even endoresed your own radical view that abortion is a 10th Amendment issue,but rather he he's forced to state as a supposed 'originalist' that it's an issue for the Federal legislature.
There is no Constitutional provision dealing with abortion. Therefore, the power to regulate is should be reserved to each state. The 10th Amendment is simply a truism - a statement that anything not in the provence of the federal gov't falls to the states ... or the people. The Court created a right to privacy and placed abortion within it. They exceeded their authority. Go read Roe v. Wade and find one shread of constitutional authority for it. Impossible! BTW I am pro-choice.
Lastly,your assumptions about my politics are funny,next your going to assume that I voted for Obama & that i'm a 'socialist'.
Well,I'm actually to the left of that--i'm an anarchist--which means that I respect the authority of no state,big or small(as if even 1st graders believe there's a genuine difference in the question of size)& it also means that I could care less about the divinity of a Constitution whose Federalist roots always insured it would serve the US class of property owners.
So that's your summation,you challenge me with straw assumptions only to conclude that "You haven't made one salient point."lol
Regarding Griswold,again,the dissent,which was based on a strict interpretation of the word privacy deviates from Scalia's more liberal analysis of statutory language(which for him relies on what was 'reasonably' meant.)
Secondly,at this point it really doesn't matter what my reading is because that's the entire point--the Constituion is not a natural law itself;it's a fucking text,so it's completely biholden to these logically circular debates.
One person reads where privacy was intended;one person reads where privacy was 'reasonbly meant';one person can't find the word privacy.lol
I myself ascribe to the AntiFederalist/Jefferson attitude,without which a Bill Of Rights would have never even existed.
You're absolutely right,my conscience takes precedent for me over any Constitution that I had no part in shaping.
Nonetheless i'm a citizen,and where I come from citizens inform themselves to inact change,so I don't know were you came up with this anarchists are apathetic outlaws bullshit.
Indeed,anarchy must sound extremely funny to a tool of the (small)state.lol
By living in this country, you avail yourself to the benefits and impliedly agree to follow the law and a democratic process. The Consitution is LAW. It doesn't matter when it was written or by whom. So you are stuck with it anarchist. No one gives a crap about your conscience. I am a tool of democracy - not a tool like you sitting in your parent's basement typing out your dopey nonsense. You think your smarter than everyone one else I bet. But, u still haven't provided a well-reasoned argument.
You've been going back & forth with me for some time now & you still don't get it:
I agree with you;the Constituion was never intended to incompass a boundless scope of personal freedoms for US citizens because it's not a Democratic document-unlike the Declaration of Independence which was born of revolution,-but it's fundamentally aristocratic in it's attempt to protect the minority from democracy.
So if abortion language can't be found in it,then it's hardly shocking.
You accuse me of being subjective while conveniently defending every convoluted turn in justice Scalia's construction standard which is not only hypersubjective in its very definition--what was 'reasonably meant'--to his voting record which confirms his obvious lack of integrity to his own doctrine.
Excuse me for recognizing that laws were written by men & are inherently fallible.Slavery was 'LAW' as well,but it wasn't your 'democratic','small' state that abolished it,but the SCOTUS.
@thirdshift47 Do tell, in what decision did the SCOTUS abolish slavery? The Supreme Court upheld slavery at every turn. It even held that non-state descendants of slaves could not be considered citizens and that the federal government could not even prohibit slavery in non-state federal territories in 1857 (quite an activist move by the court, by the way – something Scalia’s textualism would never have allowed). The 14th Amend, not SCOTUS, formally and Constitutionally ended slavery in 1868.
1.)You're right in correcting me;the court doesn't amend anything.
2.)Overall,though,you've challenged me in words alone;not points.
I'm a leftist--meaning you won't find me pining over the demise or abuse of the letter of the Constitution,as my more overarching point was that there's positively very little about it that was ever meant to be 'democratic.'
3.)And,again,my characterizing the right of the bench as 'Federalist' simply refers to their supposed states rights agenda.
The Declaration is NOT law as the Constitution & the Bill of Rights (which were passed on the same day). The first 8 Amendments were meant to protect the minority from the ruling majority & it was the majority who put it in place. They knew that the future majorities would abuse their power. Freedom of speech, religion, militia, arms & the prohibition of quartering soldiers are all things a tryannt (or any governmental entity) would take away in a power grab.
1.)I'm glad that you agree with the fundamental aristocracy in the Constitutuion.
2.)The' ruling majority' is a theoretical construct from the Declaration of Independence(whose legal authority was never realized as you've correctly pointed out).In reality there has never been a ruling majority(democracy),but in fact a white male property owning political class which had always been the defacto ruling class by virtue of the brand of political participation of the time.
@thirdshift47 The Fourteenth Amendment, in the case of slavery, proved that the Constitution wasn't static. It is not static in the sense that it can be amended, as it was to extend citizenship to blacks and ended slavery. Beyond the amendment process, the Constitution is as static as the ink on the page, and quite dead.
Property ownership is the basis for all civilizations, cultures, & tribes - no mystery there. But the founders went so much further than just protecting a man's property interest in creating our founding documents. Most possessed a great deal of knowledge, experience, & prudence - more then the avg white male property owner of that time. The Constitution us a framework to protect people from an overreaching government & NOT a treatise on every kind of permissible/impermissible human activity.
You'd be right had you stated that private property ownership is the basis for all European nations,because the same does not hold true of most indigenous peoples the world over,esp.,Natives to this country(& they payed the price for it)
Property ownership has heretofore been the basis of empire;not civilization(& continues to be in the age of private,multinational corporate conglomerates.)
I can handle laws,but for me they have to be just,reasonable,and based on the science of the day.
@thirdshift47 Be careful in using the word democracy. Even in its ideal, and even among the exclusive universe of white, property owning males, the Constitution never established a democracy. A republic is a very different thing from a democracy.
The Constitution WAS most definately a product of a democratic process. Each colony sent a delegation that chosen to represent their interests and votes were cast to enact it. Like abortion, the issue of slavery wasn't really addressed in the document either. However, amendments WERE passed by vote according to the rules of the Constitution that prohibited slavery and servitude. For 200 years, no one ever said abortion is a Constitutional issue - then come Roe. The lviing Constitution
@thirdshift47 - You are the kind of tool that only follows the parts of the Constitution YOU think should be followed. You are all for free speech and free exercise of religion. But you won't acknowledge the parts you find against your "conscience." How conveniently simple-minded Solomon.
@thirdshift47 Again, you need to read your case law. In PP v Casey, Scalia (joined by White, Rehinquist, and Thomas) in his partial concurrence/partial dissent explicitly states that abortion law is, Constitutionally, an issue to be decided by indivudal states. He says nothing about the federal legislature.
@thirdshift47 - Never said Scalia only cares about results, he cares about the process of reaching the result. Remember hevoted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions which preceeded Gonzales. Clearly, you are in favor of big gov't telling everyone how to live, legislating from the bench. Don't deny your true self.
1.)Ofcourse Scalia would vote against the commerce clause when it suites his politics.,advocacy for gun rights & hostility to 'gender bias' & yet supports its expansion over your beloved state's rights to deny marijuana usage.
2.)The 10th Amendment simply provides that issues that can't be decided by the government can be decided by state judiciaries & not necessarily state legislatures.So that weird 'small gov't' thesis doesn't necessarily ensure that your vote will count.
3.)There is no constitutional provision that denies the right to terminate a pregnancy either,which is why abortion falls within the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.
4.)It's common knowledge that the Blackburn decision on Roe was a very unpopular one,even for liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg(and as you might have missed in my previous comments,I stated that it was debatable as to how equal protection ties into abortion)
But that's a failure of interpretation;not the Constitution.
I would do some more reading on the 9th Am before you say that abortion falls within it. I think you need to read Griswold v. Connecticut and understand the origins of the right to privacy.
@thirdshift47 - If you are an anrchist you wouldn't give a crap about any of this stuff. No, you are just a loopey liberal parading around as an anarchist. You haven't made one salient point here. Scalia's approach to Constitutional jurisprudence is proper. The Constitution is LAW, not some document that evolves over time to suit you loopey notions of what should be a right and what should not. Keep looking for the subjective meaning like Mr. Justice Kennedy.
Secondly,he saw fit for the Supreme Court to undermine the Florida Supreme Court's jurisdiction in Bush v Gore,handing Bush the win.Equally,he didn't find it difficult to discover a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution that supplies language on Corporations(which didn't even exist during its ratifying)for FEC v Citizens United.But he can't find language on abortion.lol
The man is neither a consistent federalist or originalist which can only lead to one conclusion.
What an embarrassement to the Catholic Church to have fascists like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts as reps on the courts--as an Italian-American I am not to cool on Scalito either. I think Thomas is a high church Anglican because that is the whitest church that would take him.
I guess Scalia gets nostalgic for the old days when the black shirts staged the March on Rome.
You left wing nuts belay your ignorance when you refer to conservatives such as Scalia, Alito and Roberts as "fascists."
LIMITATION of government power--the CONSTRAINING role of the Constitution--is central to their ideology. They consistently argue for maximum restraint on their own judiciary powers.
It is progressives (liberals) who consistently work to make government more powerful and dictatorial. The fascist movement originated as a branch of PROGRESSIVISM.
Hey, asshole---the fascist four have no problem being judicial activists when it comes to limiting individual rights (other than property rights) against the government, limiting the power of the Congress to regulate businesses/corporations, and MAXIMIZING the power grab by Bush, Cheney, and their neocon henchmen-whether aided and abetted by Congress (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, John Warner, etc) or sua sponte by the Fuhrer, I mean the President (war powers).
@RPenta - Fascists huh? Based on your comments, you probably would fit right in with such a regime. I doubt anyone would take u seriously because u make every argument an attack against the person with racial and ethnic slurs without any kind of proof, Typically, Bush and Cheney are always your boogey men. And you denegrate those on the Supreme Court because they are people of faith. Stop being such a lemming and self-hating cry baby.
This video clip contorts what Scalia means. Having heard Scalia explain his views on Constitutional interpretation, he is not saying that he agrees with torture. He is saying when interpreting the Constitution, you have to look at what the Framers of the Constitution meant when defining "cruel and unusual punishment." Here, Scalia is saying that torture is not "punishment." Punishment is handed out because of something you did that was wrong. Torture, however is an attempt to get information.
1.)Scalia is merely attempting to restrict torture to the narrow definiton of an intelligence instrument,inspite of the fact that torture has had a more broad application in history,including punishment & amusement,e.g.,Bagram & Abu Graib.
2.)Saying that CIA torture is not punitive in some way simply makes its use far more psychotic,given that there's no evidence in forensic psychology to suggest that info attained from torture is reliable.
The only terrorist I see here is Antonin Scalia! And, this arrogant, forked-tongued reprobate is a Supreme Court Justice??? HaHa! No wonder America is going to Hell. Tell you what, let's put this cold-blooded ratsnake under a waterboard and see if he doesn't feel like he's being punished. HaHa!
Scalia is correct on this point. The reporter clearly does not understand Constitutional law. Her question was a no-brainer - especially considering every single word in the Constitution has been subject to litigation, including articles and prepositions.
Scalia is not correct;she was specifically refering to prisoners that were already in US custody.
In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld the Court decided that it was within their jurisdiction to decide on whether President Bush could set up secret tribunals to try suspected war criminals.
Its decision was based on the fact that certain Geneva Convention provisions were contained within the Uniform Code of Military Justice(which includes article 93,'cruelty & maltreatment'.)
he does in fact defend torture by effectively saying anything cruel or unusual done to a prisoner is OK so long as it is 1 not meant punishment 2 interrogation does not count as punishment. He is full of shit, however because when you are tortured in interrogation you are punished for not talking. Also the cruel and unusual things done to discombobulate prisoners are done to them under custody. when he says hes right, he means that anything goes during interrogation time because it doesnt count
He never defended tortured directly or indirectly. He said that the Constitution is not meant to prevent all things that are odious. You don't like the result, so you attack make these ad hominem attacks against him. Typical liberal! Iran executed two men for protesting the gov't. Why don't you focus on that instead of US waterboarding/torture of suspected terrorists? If you had a sense of history, you would understand what these terrorists are all about.
You want "democracy now" for terrorists? No, you want to extend due process rights to non-ctitizen terrorists while simultaneously supporting abortion. Gov'ts have traditionally regulated what people can/can't do with their bodies - prostitution, incest, bigamy and abortion. See you really don't believe in democracy, you believe in whatever YOU want at the time. Democracy means the majority of the citizens, yes citizens, vote for people to represent them in the lawmaking process.
rights of due process already exist for prisoners of the US military regardless of their particular citizenship. You want to do away with the moral fiber of our country by undermining out traditional observance of habeas corpus. i want democracy- govt regulation must be subject to the will and scrutiny of the demos to ensure it serves public interest. Guess what asshole, the majority are Pro-Choice. my support of commonly accepted womens rights is democratic. you are confused.
In addition, there are degrees of what would count as being cruel and unusual. Arguably, death by electric chair is cruel and unusual, yet that practice went on for many years and was never found to be violative of the Eighth Amendment. Forcing a person to sit in a chair to get fried by a machine that delivers electrical currents through their body seems "cruel and unusual" to me.
Scalia said, "not everything odious if covered by the Constitution." He's right.
@TwanBeezy holding anyone against their will is from the GET-GO punishment, whether it is deserved or not. Inflicting pain only extends that punishment, you ... you ... (I'd better not say what I'd like to call you!)
Yes, I understand that. A person goes to trial, he is found guilty, he goes to jail for X amount of years. That, in itself, is the punishment.
Here, what Scalia is saying is that culpability for a violation of the Eighth Amendment is different when it is torture with the purpose of information gathering rather than torture as being part of the punishment. That being said, for example, lockup in a cell for 23 hours is not cruel and unusual, but in a wooden box, it would be.
There have been cases where solitary confinement was found violative of the Eighth Amendment and usually, it is when the officers running the jail acted intentionally, or with a reckless disregard for whether serious mental/physical pain was being inflicted on the prisoner. But these actions were carried out in a manner that was, by definition, cruel and unusual punishment for their confinement, and not to gather information from them.
Don't be fooled. This is NOT about security or "saving people" it is about Force. Security is achieved by setting examples to be followed.
This IS a form of Terrorism, no doubt, no doubt that leads to more violence and less security.
The "security" that torturers "understand" is the eventual ELIMINATION of anyone weho thinks or acts differently, which is what they tried in Germany with Jews, gays, gypsies, and more...
Torture by the state, for purpose of information gathering, is different than punishment by the state, for committing a crime. Scalia said it; there are laws passed by Congress against torture. Therefore, torture for the purpose of information gathering would be in violation of those laws. Torture, as a means to punish for wrongdoing, is violative of the Eighth Amendment. The Constitution says nothing about torture as a means to gather information.
You say: "Torture by the state, for purpose of information gathering, is different than punishment by the state, for committing a crime."
indeed.
One is part of the justice system (whether administered fairly or not), the other is barbaric behavior to AVOID using a system of justice to ignore guilt or innocence, and is, itself, a CRIME!
In the '70s in Brazil under the military dictatorship, the number one tv news anchor in Sao Paulo was picked up for "questioning" about his news sources. A few days later it was announced that he had committed suicide.
Never before have so many "mother f-ers" been compacted in one brief phone conversation. And this video isn't even showing the entire conversation! Count the F-words and be AMAZED!
zerogullibility 2 months ago
I believe the justice to be totally correct in his remarks.
94buschman 2 months ago
Google: None Dare Call It Treason, written by Vincent Bugolosi. Scalia votes across the board GOP and it is so obvious it is laughable.
phillipmarch22 3 months ago
Scalia is a total joke. He was on C-Span the other day and talked about how the "living" constitution should die. Another words, the S. Court should decide matters on how the constitution was written. This fuck voted to appoint bush President twisting the 14th amendment till it didn't make sense anymore. The writers of the constitution would have never dreamed of commercial airplanes flying in to our buildings or tweeting!
phillipmarch22 3 months ago
Yes. You and the left wings of whom do not even take into consideration what has been decided by the people who ratified the constitution. I think as long as you change the meanings of the constitution as you please, there will always be meaningless ethical debate, because you made it that way. That's why your philosophy is not a solution. At least on the conservative level, you have an actual constructive and objective basis, not just relative modern morals.
Iobi123 4 months ago
I'm okey with torture if the person really deserves it! but what is going on in GITMO is a different story all together they torture everybody just to see if they know anything most of them innocent that is very very wrong
jimmy2k4o 5 months ago
@jimmy2k4o It doesn't matter whether you're "okay with it." What we must follow is the LAW. We are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, it is illegal for us to torture ANYONE, pursuant to our engagement in armed conflict.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
Correct interpretation, Justice Scalia. He, however, DOES NOT defend torture at all: he simply says it is not something under the Constitution's protection; not every law against bad things needs to be derived from the Constitution.
kinpopdj 7 months ago 13
@kinpopdj I agree. One presumably can bring a civil rights or other tort claim against prison officials for torture. Calling torture cruel and unusual punishment creates a slippery slope where inamtes can claim any substandard condition is a constitutional violation, e.g. they don't like the prison food.
edenstore 4 months ago
@edenstore People aren't limited to civil claims when they've been battered by the police. CRIMINAL charges can be brought against police officers who torture detainees.
Also, even if the rest of your statement were true (the slippery slope effect), what would that matter? This whole discussion is a search for the INTENT of the framers of the 8th amendment. That is all that matters here.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
@MIvarsson99: I never said criminal charges could not be brought against torturers. I was just thinking of the most immediate remedies for the victim personally. And only a flaming liberal would see a "slippery slope" as not mattering. And why does one need to know the "original intent" to figure out that torture differs from punishment?
edenstore 4 months ago
@edenstore I know you never ruled out criminal prosecution. I was simply attempting to educate you.
Anyway, I'm saying that a slippery slope should not matter when interpreting the 8th amendment.
This entire discussion is about interpreting the 8th amendment. All that matters is the framers' intent, when we are engaged in constitutional interpretation.
Torture is a type of punishment.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
@kinpopdj How do you know that Justice Scalia doesn't defend torture? What has he done to prove this?
Every law issued by CONGRESS must be derived from the Constitution, because Congress can only pass laws pursuant to its constitutionally delineated powers. And lastly, it is fair and valid for someone to presume that the eigth amendment proscribes cruel and unusual punishment of ALL kinds, whether it is imposed by a judge sentencing a defendant or a police officer beating a detainee.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
Classic lawyer --- nit picking the word in order to evade essence of the issue.
p3snooper 8 months ago
@p3snooper
Classic intelligent man--being careful with diction to encapsulate truth.
lordmahan11 7 months ago
@p3snooper
Law is about standards. To apply the protections of written concepts to reality requires several things: a clear and coherent definition of the concept, how and why it applies to a scenario, and most importantly, how does it conflict, if at all, with aforesaid concept.
Therefore, nit picking words is, by definition, what a lawyer does.
RavingDissension 7 months ago
@RavingDissension It's not the nit-picking that's offensive..... it's the evasion that's offensive.
p3snooper 7 months ago
@p3snooper
It's not evasion, but a perfectly sound legal question that goes back over a century. Remember to apply concepts, you first need to define them. There are several methods to do this- textual meaning, intent, precedent, etc. No federal court has ever considered torture as a means of intelligence gathering to "punishment". Sure you can posit its cruel, but that's not the legal issue at stake here.
RavingDissension 7 months ago
Ctd.
Remember, judges are experts on law, not morality. They simply apply the law that the people have adopted; for them to dictate from the bench inherently implies that the SCOTUS can arbitrarily change the social contract. You want to expand the limitations of the 8th Amendment? Perfectly acceptable opinion to have; ergo, advocate it through the amendment process. Of course it's difficult, but if your opinion is morally valid, it will eventually be ratified.
RavingDissension 7 months ago
Its amazing how many people on here misinterpret what he is saying. He is NOT saying torture is justified. He is NOT necessarily saying it is legal. He made a general point that not every bad thing in the world is banned by the Constitution, and then pointed out how the 8th Amendment (cruel and usual punishment) doesn't apply to torture. That does NOT mean that there aren't other possible sections that prohibit it. He didn't defend or justify torture at all.
dak879 9 months ago
@dak879 Most people arguing against him on here understand this. We believe that Justice Scalia has INCORRECTLY interpreted the 8th amendment.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
Where does he defend torture?
maxmcc11 9 months ago
oops i meant scalia lmao
Iobi123 9 months ago
don't question jalia on his knowledge of the constitution asses, obviously he'd own you in a debate, seeing as how you get the legal definitons mixed up
Iobi123 9 months ago
YOU GUYS ARE RETARDED. understand the legal definition of "punishment"
punishment is after being sentenced or convicted, that is a LEGAL DOCUMENT, not your own fucking interpretation, legal writing=you only get punished after a conviction-DUH
Iobi123 9 months ago
@Iobi123 If you really possessed the legal knowledge you pretend to , then you would know that these issues are not so black and white. Constitutional interpretation of terms such as "punishment" and "torture" are issues upon which even the most revered legal minds in the country disagree.
Reading your comment, it is clear to a certainty that you have never been to law school.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
Torture is a double whammy: 1, you are forgetting innocent until proven guilty. 2, you are using cruel and unusual punishment to make someone do what you want them to do.
If you torture someone and they die or confess to a crime they didn't commit, then you've broken just about every law there is on Earth.
Gratlaguy 10 months ago
@Gratlaguy No one is doubting that you haven't broken a ton of laws. Scalia himself wouldn't doubt what you say. All he is saying is that it wouldn't violate the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel/unusual punishment. Punishment has a specific legal meaning. It isn't the same as saying "cruel and unusual treatment". The only point made is that 8th Amendment doesn't apply. Doesn't mean you can't make other arguments against torture, such as a due process argument
dak879 8 months ago
OMG!!! Its evil James Garner.
rrmond 10 months ago
I am in no way supporting anyone torturing anyone, however Scalia is right.
Using torture to gain information is not punishment.
tfdfighter 11 months ago
I'm beginning to dislike Scalia with every video I watch of him. Seriously. Every debate he enters, he just says "I think it's this way, and I'm done talking to you. I'm right."
MinGophers 1 year ago
I agree completely with all of OneVoiceMore's comments on this. Scalia, as usual, uses mental gymnastics to ignore both the words and the intent of the Constitution.
He actually states that he doesn't think that ANYONE has ever equated torture with punishment. Not even he believes that, yet he says it as if he does. One trait of a sociopath is someone who can tell a known lie as if they believe it is true.
99+% of children and 90+% of adults will tell you that torture is punishment. Just ask.
universalunity 1 year ago
Scalia is right and his beliefs resonate with about 90% of good Americans.
nytmstr 1 year ago
It torture is used to save libasterd lives, I'm against it. If it's to save Patriotic lives, I'm all for it.
Buckaroo543 1 year ago
Punishment from the legal perspective happens upon conviction of the defendant. If torture happens after this point it is in violation of the eight amendment; however if it happens before it does not! Get your facts straight Scalia knows what he's talking about!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@gunzrkewl You do realize that by this man's "tortured" logic [pun intended] it's okay for the cops to beat you as long as it's not a "punishment"?
olivemike81 1 year ago 2
@olivemike81 no, he's simply distinguishing battery (police officer beating you) from punishment (sentencing; e.g. 10 years in prison, 30 days in the electric chair, etc.)
CHARLIE10SHERRARD 1 week ago
Scalia is such an arrogant, immoral asshole. That he was allowed to rise to the highest court in the land is a condemnation of America. As a military interrogator with 3 deployments and thirty years of service I resent conservatives who advocate torture knowing they will not have to carry it out. Asshole conservatives.
badad4444 1 year ago
Comment removed
nossful 1 year ago
Punishment must be carried out by a court of law. Plus torture statuates don't apply to POWs! Scalia is right!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@gunzrkewl Not true lol. The founding fathers would hang soldiers that tortured POWs.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
@safewaysecurity Well guess what Scalia is still right. Even if what you said is true. And yes tortured was used during the revolutionary war!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@gunzrkewl He's not though because torture is PUNISHMENT. By definition! You are punishing someone for not releasing information. If they release the information they would stop the punishment for not doing so. The founding fathers put in that provision because they did not want the state to have the power to make people fear the government by having the ability to torture for any reason. Torture is punishment even in and of itself. It's certainly not a reward.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago 2
@safewaysecurity Suffering in the legal defintion means and I quote " a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure" Thus torture is not punishment!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
@safewaysecurity Punishing for not doing something? I don't like that idea.
MinGophers 1 year ago
@gunzrkewl How stupid can you be?!?! You wrote: "Scalia is right. Even if what you said is true..."---that's the eqivalent of saying "Scalia is right even if he is wrong."
What you mean is that Scalia's view is the prevalent one held among article 3 court judges in America.
That does not make it "right" just because it is popular.
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
Punishing you for not giving the information... I am an originalist but torture is DEFINITELY unconstitutional. Hell even Scalia says the the bill of rights was designed to prevent the kind of things a tyrant would do. And torture is something they would do.
safewaysecurity 1 year ago
@safewaysecurity That is not punishment!
gunzrkewl 1 year ago
you're headed for a rough interview when Scalia gets animated with his hands ... that's when you can see his brain go into overdrive ... his intellect is amazing, not only here but in his opinions as well
hondadude7 1 year ago
@hondadude7 Yep. It takes an absolute genious to come up with the idea that it's okay for the cops to beat you as long as it's not "punishment."
olivemike81 1 year ago 2
It all seems to depend on whether it is torture for pleasure or for information.
lulusername 1 year ago
Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution does not provide a hammer for every nail. That is what legislatures are for. If you disagree with torture, simply PASS A STATUTE against it.
YourNameHere1212 1 year ago
Scalia is a real creep. He is 74 but doesn't look like he is going to drop dead any time soon.
jusguyz 1 year ago
Scalia is a real creep. He is 74 but dosen't look like he is going to drop dead any time soon
jusguyz 1 year ago
Also, I'm not sure if any of you missed it, but Scalia actually said there were laws against torture. What he is arguing about is whether torture constitutes a punishment, which his stupidly says it isn't.
Wran84 1 year ago
Scalia had zero point. Torture is a huge form of punishment. To argue differently is just plain stupid.
Wran84 1 year ago 2
Scalia has a point
lawyer4817 1 year ago
Keep in mind there's a huge difference in meaning between "conservative judge" and "conservative politician". Conservative judges tend to read laws as they appear on their face. Liberal judges find ways to read new meaning into them to fit the times. Both positions have their pros and cons.
nicky2coats 1 year ago
This is simple-minded propaganda.
Scalia says a fetus isn't entitled to the rights of a human being? The fascistic conservative idiots get mad at him. Scalia says you don't have a constitutional right to have an abortion? The liberal wackos get mad at him.
Supreme Court justices don't operate in the petty political sphere of Democracy Now and whoever the hell idiot woman was interviewing Justice Scalia. They operate legally. Not politically.
afterapplepicking 1 year ago
"Who's in favor of it? Nobody." Then why is it an issue? Why does it happen? Sadly, there are millions of people in the US who would defend or advocate the use of torture.
borjon23 1 year ago
goodman looks like crap.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
LOL
That's one of the many resons that we like her.
Unlike those playboy bunnies at Fox News
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Aside from the clear Constitutional protection about the right to oppose self-incrimination, Scalia can say he's correct all day long, but you must be extremely obtuse to buy into it.
Being tortured in order to obtain self-incriminating evidence is unconstitutional, and arguments about whether torture is punishment are a bit of a smokescreen.
Arguing fine points of constitutional niceties while clearing discarding the clear sum total of constitutional protections is lawyer double-think.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
Typical for a "news" outlet lead by Nadar.
SimulacrumMaster 1 year ago
How does the practice of "torture" not fall into the category of the clearly unconstitutional "cruel and/or unusual punishment"? Can somebody enlighten me lol?
davethehostage 1 year ago
@davethehostage Although I don't agree with torture, Scalia is right. Just because you torture someone it does not mean you are punishing them. But, because the use of torture in a coercive situation is not defined by the Constitution, ie. "cruel and unusual coercion," the Supreme Court cannot ban the use of such tactics, let alone define what 'torture' means. Hope this helps..
smo699 1 year ago
@smo699 - Ah, okay. Thanks. It certainly is a fine line though. Perhaps an amendment is in order lol.
davethehostage 1 year ago
@davethehostage In legal terms, punishment implies a penalty inflicted for a crime after a system of due process finds a person guilty. Torture as a post-trial punishment would be cruel punishment. Torture before a trial with the purpose of obtaining information may be morally reprehensible, but is not by definition punishment. It is neither inflicted as part of a legal system nor for the purpose of punishment for a crime. None of that makes it right. It just isn't SCOTUS domain.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@FAHayek89 It depends on how whole-heartedly one accepts the strict limitation that 'punishment' is only post-trial. I think it's implicit in the Constitution that cruel behavior is undesirable. There seems to be some legal wand-waving to endorse pre-sentencing cruelty.
If these men had DUE PROCESS, this would be a moot point.
I guess I'm more of a top-down thinker, and I find your arguments, while 'legally' somewhat sound, to require mental and moral gymnastics on the clear intent of the Con.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore EXACTLY. This is just a bunch of extremist, conservative bluster.
Leslie Stahl makes a great point here. Even AFTER conviction, the law punishes the accused based solely on its BELIEF that he has committed a crime. That belief may have been substantiated by evidence, legal burdens of proof, etc. but it is still nothing more than a belief. So, why is that so different from when a law enforcement agent beats a man based on his BELIEF that the person has committed an offense??
MIvarsson99 4 months ago
the title is wrong ...
wyrmguard 1 year ago 18
@DojoNDude. I don't think this is an issue of semantics. The 8th amendment doesn't consider at all the scenario where torture may yield some sufficient benefit. The purpose of post-conviction sanctions are retribution, deterrence, etc. Torture in the modern political context alleges the purpose of information gathering. How is that a distinction of semantics?
azbrougar 1 year ago
Scalia did not defend torture in this video, the title it utterly misleading.
r5t9m0 1 year ago
Please, Justice Scalia, your job is to interpret what the framers intended, not to play semantic games. The punishment for a crime occurs after you have been tried and found guilty. At that point the State has the most license, yet still they are barred from the cruel and unusual. It is not a huge leap to assume that those not found guilty of a crime are extended the same protections. In fact, it is absurd to think otherwise.
DojoNDude 1 year ago
Scaliia is obviously OTL on this. Any sensible person would realize that it does no good to bar cruel and unusual punishment if you allow unrestrained interrogation. The idea that people should be fearing the interrogation as opposed to the punishment for their crime is totally Alice-in-Wonderland. I can't believe the man's a Supreme Court Justice!?!
DojoNDude 1 year ago
@DojoNDude - The job of a judge is to decide tough legal issues. I am sure if you were a judge you would do much better. Go pick up a Nolo book and you'll be ready to go.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster My point exactly. If the guy can't handle the no-brainers, what's he doing on the bench???
DojoNDude 1 year ago
Scalia simply uses the definition of the punishment and torture to make his point. Sorry, but as a judge, you have to start with the plain meaning of words for proper legal analysis
socalcraigster 1 year ago
I reckon the guy getting his balls electrocuted would think he was being punished!!
suspectVandal 1 year ago
Hell Yeah Scalia! Stupid liberal fucks have got nothin on him.
321lawc 1 year ago
@321lawc
I bet you are immune to waterboarding; that is because the water would run out of all the holes in your head.
By the way, do you think Scalia has too much hair to play Il Duce?
You are an asshole but he is a lying SOB--Bush, Cheney, and Obama are in favor of torture and damn well know what ii is even if you pretends not to.
RPenta 1 year ago
@RPenta I don't care if Islamic fanatics are tortured. I don't care at all.
321lawc 1 year ago
@321lawc
I know--fascists really don't care who get tortured especially if it is someone they have an irrational hate for.
By the way, wasn't it terrible how the Moslems attacked the USS Liberty in international waters in 1967 and almost caused a nuclear war in the Middle East? Oh, sorry, that was our gallant friend Israel.
RPenta 1 year ago
@RPenta Hatred towards Islamic fanatics is irrational? How interesting. Oh, if only I could see the errors of my ways...
321lawc 1 year ago
@321lawc
What is your problem with Moslem fanatics as opposed to Jewish fanatics or Christian fanatics? The Jewish fanatics have a huge army, navy, air force and nuclear weapons--that is because the Jewish fanatics run the Israeli government. The so-called Christian fanatics controlled the government in US for eight years.
Bet you never heard of the Liberty, right?
RPenta 1 year ago
Hell Yeah Scalia! Stupid liberal fucks have got nothin on him.
321lawc 1 year ago
i support scalia's decision, he is the best judge thus far to the court
americanman2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tehpizzahut 1 year ago
LOL
Everyone on the Supreme Court favors an ideology as well as a poisiton in constitutional theory(especially Scalia);justice Kennedy is usually the center-right swing vote.
If there is in fact a strong argument for torture not being in violation of the Constitution he certainly doesn't make it.Instead he makes self-refuting remarks on how torture is ill-defined,only to follow it up with a strict definition of torture as forensic science.lol
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tehpizzahut 1 year ago
Scalia is an unabashed right-wing jurist & his voting record reveals it(which is only in part influenced by Originalism,which has always served as an intellectual bulwark for for the right.)He's an avowed federalist that ascribes to the notion that all civil rights issues,including abortion,are issues for state legislatures,& that the Constitution is essentially a conservative,theoretical document for debating ideas like 'torture' but not their ethics.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 Right on, baby.
RPenta 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 -Abortion (right to privacy) is not a right in the Consitution. It is supposed to be for each state to decide. You want to use the Supreme Court in a way that it was not intended, as a way around the democratic voting process. It should not be these 9 justices to circumvent this process every time you have a woild hair.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
You've obviously never heard of the 4th Amendment.
Actually the abortion decision,written by Justice Harry Blackburn,was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Now there's certainly a valid debate to be had as to how the language of equal protection applies to reproductive rights(and Scalia seems to have made it his lifes work-lol) but what is not debatable is that states don't have the right to challenge what the Supreme Court has deemed a civil right.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Not so thirdinput. The Equal Protection (5th Am) applies to fundamental rights (right to marry, to procreate, to vote, to parent). These are rights deemed so fundamental they need not be expressly stated in the Constitution. The right to privacy, expressly stated under the 4th Am, is not a fundamental right and it is not for abortion. It has to do with unreasonable warrantless searches & seizures. The Roe decision is not based on law; it is a fiction that subverts State power thru the vote.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
Dude,before you decide to debate an issue such as this atleast go online and read up on your constitution.
The equal protection clause is a 14th Amendment provision;the self incrimination clause in the 5th Amendement.
You're the 1 that assumed abortion was a privacy issue;not me.
As for Roe,as well as other issues of rights unenumerated in the 1st 8 amen.,such as suicide,drug consumption,etc.,they're all covered in the 9th.
From there it becomes a matter of interpretation.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
The point is the right to privacy is NOT a fundamental right. The EP clause is to protect fundamental rights. The 14th Am. is applicable to the state & the Federal Gov't via the 5th, through the doctrine of incorporation. That is what I was talking about. I bet you did not know that the 14th was not technically ratified properly because a couple of states renounced their vote because the southern states HAD to ratify as a condition to get back in the Union. Most decision by SCOTUS are 5-4
socalcraigster 1 year ago
Why do you keep bringing up the right to privacy?
Secondly,by your definiton the freedom of speech,the right to protest your government,the right to a fair trial & the right to bear arms aren't 'fundamental rights' either,but issues for the states to decide on.
The Due Process clause of the 14th Amen., clearly states that 'all legal rights'(as defined in the Bill of Rights;not 'fundamental rights'--now you're adding your own language)of individual citizens are protected from the states.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
The rights of individuals you mentioned ARE enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am talking about rights that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution but are fundamental to an individual's freedom. They include right to marry,procreate, parent and even vote. There is no fundamental right to privacy. The Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Gov't (Congress) when passed. Eventually, the Supreme Court extended them to the states via the doctrine of incorporation.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
lmao
How in the hell can procreation be essential to an'individual's freedom' but the right to terminate a pregnancy not?
Second,Privacy,just as issues of procreation,marrige(including same sex)and any other basic right the heart can imagine can be extrapolated in the 9th Amendment.The point 'intended',as Thomas Jefferson(the father of unenumerated rights)stated--
"No society can make a perpetual Constituiton or even a perpetual law.The Earth belongs to the generation"
thirdshift47 1 year ago
It is the RIGHT to procreate -meaning that the state can't tell u to have/not have children like China. That is an unenumerted fundamental right - it cannot be taken away by government action. Abortion has been made a fundamental right through fuzzy logic - the idea of a fundamental right to privacy. If that is so, & a woman has a right to her body,why isnt prostitution/bigamy fundamental rights too? The reason is that the Roe court went too far - just like the Commerce Clause. Judicial Activism
socalcraigster 1 year ago
But the states,like Chinese state,shouldn't be restrained in their supremacy over a citizen's body?
It's not an issue of the logic behind abortion,no more than there being an issue behing the freedom to use irrational speech.It's about whether freedom from having one's body politicized & regulated,which I agree,includes drug consumption,prostitution,polygamy(for which there are no strong legal arguments against)can be extrapolated from the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
I never said I am for an "unrestrained" state. These issues can be decided w/o using the Constitution. Abortion had been illegal for 200 yrs in Amercia & most other places for thousands of years. It is NOT a Constitutional issue but unrestrained judicial activism. IT is a state's rights issue. As such, the voters of each are supposed to decide whether or not they will allow it & to what extent. Regulating healthcare is fine but it is not for the Court to say it is a "right" for everyone.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@thirdinput- This is Civics101. Each state retains the police power - the power to regulate for the health, safety, welfare and morals of its citizenry. So whatever is not under Federal control, each state can pass its own laws. Every society yields this power - laws against inest, rape, bigamy, prostitution and YES abortion. These are not fundamental rights. So Nevada is free to permit prostitution. However, once the SCOTUS decide on an issue, it becomes law for the entire country, w/o any vote
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
Again,you've obviously never heard of the commerce clause(article 1,section 8--1st Amendment)which gives the federal gov't the right to regulate all interstate commerce,including the selling of insurance(and Declaration of Indepence 101 concludes that life,which to any idiot implies health,is a natural right,not to be denied by either federal or state governments.)
thirdshift47 1 year ago
"Civics 101" simply says that according to the constitution the US states have the independence to regulate legal codes and pass legislation that in no way can deny rights of citizens.
Indeed,even prostitution will one day make its way to the Supreme Court & argued as a 9th Amendment right,but right now we're still too puritanical a society so it becomes an issue for state legislatures--like drug usage.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
It is common knowledge that the Court has recently limited the broad expanse of that Commerce Clause (Thomas and Scalia) after a long history where the Court acquiesed to the power grab of the federal govt. I am surprised that you, a person who is against Bush and Cheney expanding power, would say this that the commerce clause should encompass just about every act of Congress.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
1.)Ofcourse the 'Federalists' jurists on the court would vote to limit the commerce clause;that's an argument?lol
The point is that the commerce clause provides one of the fundamental powers of the gov't enumerated clearly in the Constitution;not whether or not I support it(you're on a roll with all of these assumptions.lol)
Indeed,i'm surprised AT YOU for confusing the Bush/Cheney rewriting of excutive power with those powers that are cleary provided in the 1st Amendment.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
I'm talking about all the branches of FEDERAL gov't in a power grap against the States. My concern is that the democratic process is being subverted by those who look to the SCOTUS for a decision that can then be imposed throughout the nation. The commerce clause was originally meant to protect against states for taxing each other on the waterways, not to prohibit the sale of guns or something like that. The Court needs to return to the proper use of that power
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
Dude,the Federal government has failed miserably in regulating interstate commece,including Health Insurance,inspite of the fact that they have the tools in the commerce clause & the Sherman Antitrust laws.
But when the private sector writes the legislation what can you expect?
I also find it amusing that your so paranoid of an activist court & yet you site Thomas & Scalia's judicial activism against the Commerce Clause as worthy argument against it.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 - It is not activism, but a correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Scalia makes the more compelling argument every time. He doesnt care about the result as muc as he care about the method of reaching the result. You rather have an unelected judge decide the law for you rather than the democratic process - electing officials that who represent us. I am not paranoid about an activist court. I am concerned about the way the court reaches its decisions.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
LOL
And how exactly is an original meaning interpretation of the commerce clause 'a correct interpretation?'
Says whom?
Secondly,your major premise for a limited commerce clause directly controverts the Scalia decision that says states don't have the right to regulate noncommercial,medically prescribe marijuana(Gonzales v.Raich)
He chose to consult the Necessary & Proper Clause which expands the Feds rights.
I agree with you;Scalia only cares about results,not states.lol
thirdshift47 1 year ago
If abortion is not Constitutional than how can it be a 10th Amendment issue?
It's blatantly self-refuting.
Even Scalia,an abashed right-wing jurist,has not even endoresed your own radical view that abortion is a 10th Amendment issue,but rather he he's forced to state as a supposed 'originalist' that it's an issue for the Federal legislature.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
There is no Constitutional provision dealing with abortion. Therefore, the power to regulate is should be reserved to each state. The 10th Amendment is simply a truism - a statement that anything not in the provence of the federal gov't falls to the states ... or the people. The Court created a right to privacy and placed abortion within it. They exceeded their authority. Go read Roe v. Wade and find one shread of constitutional authority for it. Impossible! BTW I am pro-choice.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
Lastly,your assumptions about my politics are funny,next your going to assume that I voted for Obama & that i'm a 'socialist'.
Well,I'm actually to the left of that--i'm an anarchist--which means that I respect the authority of no state,big or small(as if even 1st graders believe there's a genuine difference in the question of size)& it also means that I could care less about the divinity of a Constitution whose Federalist roots always insured it would serve the US class of property owners.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 - Anarchist? That is the funniest thing you said.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
So that's your summation,you challenge me with straw assumptions only to conclude that "You haven't made one salient point."lol
Regarding Griswold,again,the dissent,which was based on a strict interpretation of the word privacy deviates from Scalia's more liberal analysis of statutory language(which for him relies on what was 'reasonably' meant.)
I mean,really.lol
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Secondly,at this point it really doesn't matter what my reading is because that's the entire point--the Constituion is not a natural law itself;it's a fucking text,so it's completely biholden to these logically circular debates.
One person reads where privacy was intended;one person reads where privacy was 'reasonbly meant';one person can't find the word privacy.lol
I myself ascribe to the AntiFederalist/Jefferson attitude,without which a Bill Of Rights would have never even existed.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Lastly,
You're absolutely right,my conscience takes precedent for me over any Constitution that I had no part in shaping.
Nonetheless i'm a citizen,and where I come from citizens inform themselves to inact change,so I don't know were you came up with this anarchists are apathetic outlaws bullshit.
Indeed,anarchy must sound extremely funny to a tool of the (small)state.lol
thirdshift47 1 year ago
By living in this country, you avail yourself to the benefits and impliedly agree to follow the law and a democratic process. The Consitution is LAW. It doesn't matter when it was written or by whom. So you are stuck with it anarchist. No one gives a crap about your conscience. I am a tool of democracy - not a tool like you sitting in your parent's basement typing out your dopey nonsense. You think your smarter than everyone one else I bet. But, u still haven't provided a well-reasoned argument.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
LOL
You've been going back & forth with me for some time now & you still don't get it:
I agree with you;the Constituion was never intended to incompass a boundless scope of personal freedoms for US citizens because it's not a Democratic document-unlike the Declaration of Independence which was born of revolution,-but it's fundamentally aristocratic in it's attempt to protect the minority from democracy.
So if abortion language can't be found in it,then it's hardly shocking.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
Secondly,
You accuse me of being subjective while conveniently defending every convoluted turn in justice Scalia's construction standard which is not only hypersubjective in its very definition--what was 'reasonably meant'--to his voting record which confirms his obvious lack of integrity to his own doctrine.
Excuse me for recognizing that laws were written by men & are inherently fallible.Slavery was 'LAW' as well,but it wasn't your 'democratic','small' state that abolished it,but the SCOTUS.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 Do tell, in what decision did the SCOTUS abolish slavery? The Supreme Court upheld slavery at every turn. It even held that non-state descendants of slaves could not be considered citizens and that the federal government could not even prohibit slavery in non-state federal territories in 1857 (quite an activist move by the court, by the way – something Scalia’s textualism would never have allowed). The 14th Amend, not SCOTUS, formally and Constitutionally ended slavery in 1868.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@FAHayek89
1.)You're right in correcting me;the court doesn't amend anything.
2.)Overall,though,you've challenged me in words alone;not points.
I'm a leftist--meaning you won't find me pining over the demise or abuse of the letter of the Constitution,as my more overarching point was that there's positively very little about it that was ever meant to be 'democratic.'
3.)And,again,my characterizing the right of the bench as 'Federalist' simply refers to their supposed states rights agenda.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
The Declaration is NOT law as the Constitution & the Bill of Rights (which were passed on the same day). The first 8 Amendments were meant to protect the minority from the ruling majority & it was the majority who put it in place. They knew that the future majorities would abuse their power. Freedom of speech, religion, militia, arms & the prohibition of quartering soldiers are all things a tryannt (or any governmental entity) would take away in a power grab.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
1.)I'm glad that you agree with the fundamental aristocracy in the Constitutuion.
2.)The' ruling majority' is a theoretical construct from the Declaration of Independence(whose legal authority was never realized as you've correctly pointed out).In reality there has never been a ruling majority(democracy),but in fact a white male property owning political class which had always been the defacto ruling class by virtue of the brand of political participation of the time.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
3.)"The Constitution WAS most definately a product of a democratic process."
And I ask you:Did these delegations include the votes of Natives,women & blacks?
Some democracy.LOL
4.)For alot more than 200yrs(indeed since the Hummurabi Code)no one considered slavery a violation of 'fundamental right.'
But when you rationlize an organized society on the principles of democracy & personal freedom,then you can't ignore issues like slavery & 'choice'.
5.)Slavery proved the Constituion isn't static
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 The Fourteenth Amendment, in the case of slavery, proved that the Constitution wasn't static. It is not static in the sense that it can be amended, as it was to extend citizenship to blacks and ended slavery. Beyond the amendment process, the Constitution is as static as the ink on the page, and quite dead.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@FAHayek89 Well said
anikinippon 1 year ago
Property ownership is the basis for all civilizations, cultures, & tribes - no mystery there. But the founders went so much further than just protecting a man's property interest in creating our founding documents. Most possessed a great deal of knowledge, experience, & prudence - more then the avg white male property owner of that time. The Constitution us a framework to protect people from an overreaching government & NOT a treatise on every kind of permissible/impermissible human activity.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@soc
You'd be right had you stated that private property ownership is the basis for all European nations,because the same does not hold true of most indigenous peoples the world over,esp.,Natives to this country(& they payed the price for it)
Property ownership has heretofore been the basis of empire;not civilization(& continues to be in the age of private,multinational corporate conglomerates.)
I can handle laws,but for me they have to be just,reasonable,and based on the science of the day.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 Be careful in using the word democracy. Even in its ideal, and even among the exclusive universe of white, property owning males, the Constitution never established a democracy. A republic is a very different thing from a democracy.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
The Constitution WAS most definately a product of a democratic process. Each colony sent a delegation that chosen to represent their interests and votes were cast to enact it. Like abortion, the issue of slavery wasn't really addressed in the document either. However, amendments WERE passed by vote according to the rules of the Constitution that prohibited slavery and servitude. For 200 years, no one ever said abortion is a Constitutional issue - then come Roe. The lviing Constitution
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
Lastly:'a well reasoned argument?'
We'll let the readers of our comments decide how brilliant & convincing you were.
Until then,holler at me if you see me in your moms basement.lol
I'm out like a Kennedy curse.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 - "In another, reality I could have called you friend."
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 - You are the kind of tool that only follows the parts of the Constitution YOU think should be followed. You are all for free speech and free exercise of religion. But you won't acknowledge the parts you find against your "conscience." How conveniently simple-minded Solomon.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 Again, you need to read your case law. In PP v Casey, Scalia (joined by White, Rehinquist, and Thomas) in his partial concurrence/partial dissent explicitly states that abortion law is, Constitutionally, an issue to be decided by indivudal states. He says nothing about the federal legislature.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 - Never said Scalia only cares about results, he cares about the process of reaching the result. Remember hevoted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions which preceeded Gonzales. Clearly, you are in favor of big gov't telling everyone how to live, legislating from the bench. Don't deny your true self.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@socalcraigster
1.)Ofcourse Scalia would vote against the commerce clause when it suites his politics.,advocacy for gun rights & hostility to 'gender bias' & yet supports its expansion over your beloved state's rights to deny marijuana usage.
2.)The 10th Amendment simply provides that issues that can't be decided by the government can be decided by state judiciaries & not necessarily state legislatures.So that weird 'small gov't' thesis doesn't necessarily ensure that your vote will count.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
3.)There is no constitutional provision that denies the right to terminate a pregnancy either,which is why abortion falls within the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.
4.)It's common knowledge that the Blackburn decision on Roe was a very unpopular one,even for liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg(and as you might have missed in my previous comments,I stated that it was debatable as to how equal protection ties into abortion)
But that's a failure of interpretation;not the Constitution.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
I would do some more reading on the 9th Am before you say that abortion falls within it. I think you need to read Griswold v. Connecticut and understand the origins of the right to privacy.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
@thirdshift47 - If you are an anrchist you wouldn't give a crap about any of this stuff. No, you are just a loopey liberal parading around as an anarchist. You haven't made one salient point here. Scalia's approach to Constitutional jurisprudence is proper. The Constitution is LAW, not some document that evolves over time to suit you loopey notions of what should be a right and what should not. Keep looking for the subjective meaning like Mr. Justice Kennedy.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
Secondly,he saw fit for the Supreme Court to undermine the Florida Supreme Court's jurisdiction in Bush v Gore,handing Bush the win.Equally,he didn't find it difficult to discover a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution that supplies language on Corporations(which didn't even exist during its ratifying)for FEC v Citizens United.But he can't find language on abortion.lol
The man is neither a consistent federalist or originalist which can only lead to one conclusion.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
@Tehpizzahut
What an embarrassement to the Catholic Church to have fascists like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts as reps on the courts--as an Italian-American I am not to cool on Scalito either. I think Thomas is a high church Anglican because that is the whitest church that would take him.
I guess Scalia gets nostalgic for the old days when the black shirts staged the March on Rome.
Vinceremo!
RPenta 1 year ago
You left wing nuts belay your ignorance when you refer to conservatives such as Scalia, Alito and Roberts as "fascists."
LIMITATION of government power--the CONSTRAINING role of the Constitution--is central to their ideology. They consistently argue for maximum restraint on their own judiciary powers.
It is progressives (liberals) who consistently work to make government more powerful and dictatorial. The fascist movement originated as a branch of PROGRESSIVISM.
UncleIrv 1 year ago
@UncleIrv
Hey, asshole---the fascist four have no problem being judicial activists when it comes to limiting individual rights (other than property rights) against the government, limiting the power of the Congress to regulate businesses/corporations, and MAXIMIZING the power grab by Bush, Cheney, and their neocon henchmen-whether aided and abetted by Congress (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, John Warner, etc) or sua sponte by the Fuhrer, I mean the President (war powers).
RPenta 1 year ago
@RPenta - Fascists huh? Based on your comments, you probably would fit right in with such a regime. I doubt anyone would take u seriously because u make every argument an attack against the person with racial and ethnic slurs without any kind of proof, Typically, Bush and Cheney are always your boogey men. And you denegrate those on the Supreme Court because they are people of faith. Stop being such a lemming and self-hating cry baby.
socalcraigster 1 year ago
Scalia the scuzzball. This guy is a supreme court justice.
bbossin 1 year ago
This video clip contorts what Scalia means. Having heard Scalia explain his views on Constitutional interpretation, he is not saying that he agrees with torture. He is saying when interpreting the Constitution, you have to look at what the Framers of the Constitution meant when defining "cruel and unusual punishment." Here, Scalia is saying that torture is not "punishment." Punishment is handed out because of something you did that was wrong. Torture, however is an attempt to get information.
StarkeySamuel 1 year ago
1.)Scalia is merely attempting to restrict torture to the narrow definiton of an intelligence instrument,inspite of the fact that torture has had a more broad application in history,including punishment & amusement,e.g.,Bagram & Abu Graib.
2.)Saying that CIA torture is not punitive in some way simply makes its use far more psychotic,given that there's no evidence in forensic psychology to suggest that info attained from torture is reliable.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
This guy is INSANE.
SocialDissimulation 1 year ago
The only terrorist I see here is Antonin Scalia! And, this arrogant, forked-tongued reprobate is a Supreme Court Justice??? HaHa! No wonder America is going to Hell. Tell you what, let's put this cold-blooded ratsnake under a waterboard and see if he doesn't feel like he's being punished. HaHa!
BeadStallcup 1 year ago
Scalia is correct on this point. The reporter clearly does not understand Constitutional law. Her question was a no-brainer - especially considering every single word in the Constitution has been subject to litigation, including articles and prepositions.
ieodksnw787 1 year ago 26
Scalia is not correct;she was specifically refering to prisoners that were already in US custody.
In Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld the Court decided that it was within their jurisdiction to decide on whether President Bush could set up secret tribunals to try suspected war criminals.
Its decision was based on the fact that certain Geneva Convention provisions were contained within the Uniform Code of Military Justice(which includes article 93,'cruelty & maltreatment'.)
Scalia is caveling as usual.
thirdshift47 1 year ago
He never defended torture you douchebag! That was the first thing he said. Take the dick s out of your ear.
socalcraigster 2 years ago
he does in fact defend torture by effectively saying anything cruel or unusual done to a prisoner is OK so long as it is 1 not meant punishment 2 interrogation does not count as punishment. He is full of shit, however because when you are tortured in interrogation you are punished for not talking. Also the cruel and unusual things done to discombobulate prisoners are done to them under custody. when he says hes right, he means that anything goes during interrogation time because it doesnt count
willwkrueger 2 years ago
He never defended tortured directly or indirectly. He said that the Constitution is not meant to prevent all things that are odious. You don't like the result, so you attack make these ad hominem attacks against him. Typical liberal! Iran executed two men for protesting the gov't. Why don't you focus on that instead of US waterboarding/torture of suspected terrorists? If you had a sense of history, you would understand what these terrorists are all about.
socalcraigster 2 years ago
@socalcraigster
Gee, because I am a citizen of the US and cares about what it does--how about that for a starter my fascist friend.
RPenta 1 year ago
You want "democracy now" for terrorists? No, you want to extend due process rights to non-ctitizen terrorists while simultaneously supporting abortion. Gov'ts have traditionally regulated what people can/can't do with their bodies - prostitution, incest, bigamy and abortion. See you really don't believe in democracy, you believe in whatever YOU want at the time. Democracy means the majority of the citizens, yes citizens, vote for people to represent them in the lawmaking process.
socalcraigster 2 years ago
rights of due process already exist for prisoners of the US military regardless of their particular citizenship. You want to do away with the moral fiber of our country by undermining out traditional observance of habeas corpus. i want democracy- govt regulation must be subject to the will and scrutiny of the demos to ensure it serves public interest. Guess what asshole, the majority are Pro-Choice. my support of commonly accepted womens rights is democratic. you are confused.
willwkrueger 2 years ago
In addition, there are degrees of what would count as being cruel and unusual. Arguably, death by electric chair is cruel and unusual, yet that practice went on for many years and was never found to be violative of the Eighth Amendment. Forcing a person to sit in a chair to get fried by a machine that delivers electrical currents through their body seems "cruel and unusual" to me.
Scalia said, "not everything odious if covered by the Constitution." He's right.
TwanBeezy 2 years ago
I agree with Scalia. Punishment and torture are two different things.
TwanBeezy 2 years ago
@TwanBeezy holding anyone against their will is from the GET-GO punishment, whether it is deserved or not. Inflicting pain only extends that punishment, you ... you ... (I'd better not say what I'd like to call you!)
inspired14U 2 years ago
@inspired14U
Yes, I understand that. A person goes to trial, he is found guilty, he goes to jail for X amount of years. That, in itself, is the punishment.
Here, what Scalia is saying is that culpability for a violation of the Eighth Amendment is different when it is torture with the purpose of information gathering rather than torture as being part of the punishment. That being said, for example, lockup in a cell for 23 hours is not cruel and unusual, but in a wooden box, it would be.
TwanBeezy 2 years ago
@inspired14U (continued)
There have been cases where solitary confinement was found violative of the Eighth Amendment and usually, it is when the officers running the jail acted intentionally, or with a reckless disregard for whether serious mental/physical pain was being inflicted on the prisoner. But these actions were carried out in a manner that was, by definition, cruel and unusual punishment for their confinement, and not to gather information from them.
TwanBeezy 2 years ago
@TwanBeezy (continued)
Don't be fooled. This is NOT about security or "saving people" it is about Force. Security is achieved by setting examples to be followed.
This IS a form of Terrorism, no doubt, no doubt that leads to more violence and less security.
The "security" that torturers "understand" is the eventual ELIMINATION of anyone weho thinks or acts differently, which is what they tried in Germany with Jews, gays, gypsies, and more...
inspired14U 2 years ago
@inspired14U (continued)
Torture by the state, for purpose of information gathering, is different than punishment by the state, for committing a crime. Scalia said it; there are laws passed by Congress against torture. Therefore, torture for the purpose of information gathering would be in violation of those laws. Torture, as a means to punish for wrongdoing, is violative of the Eighth Amendment. The Constitution says nothing about torture as a means to gather information.
TwanBeezy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TwanBeezy
You say: "Torture by the state, for purpose of information gathering, is different than punishment by the state, for committing a crime."
indeed.
One is part of the justice system (whether administered fairly or not), the other is barbaric behavior to AVOID using a system of justice to ignore guilt or innocence, and is, itself, a CRIME!
It is "Might Makes Right."
inspired14U 2 years ago
@TwanBeezy (continued)
In the '70s in Brazil under the military dictatorship, the number one tv news anchor in Sao Paulo was picked up for "questioning" about his news sources. A few days later it was announced that he had committed suicide.
THIS is the kind